Do you support Cindy Sheehan's antics in protesting the war in Iraq?

[Navy Pride]

Perhaps you have some problems with comprehension or literacy? Advocating a person's right to free speech doesn't mean agreement with that speech.

For some reason, this is a difficult concept for you, isn't it? Does the concept of free speech baffle you that much?

Free speech up to a point............You can't Scream fire in a crowded movie theater if there is none nor can you advocate overthrow of this government..

Does that concept baffle you?:roll:

 

[Deegan]

Perhaps you have some problems with comprehension or literacy? Advocating a person's right to free speech doesn't mean agreement with that speech.

For some reason, this is a difficult concept for you, isn't it? Does the concept of free speech baffle you that much?

The issue here is the place and time, it is illegal to protest in this setting, that's the crux of this issue.

 

[steen]

The issue here is the place and time, it is illegal to protest in this setting, that's the crux of this issue.

Hmm, that seems anti-democratic. Perhaps you can provide a reference or link to a post where this was clarified??

 

[steen]

Free speech up to a point............You can't Scream fire in a crowded movie theater if there is none nor can you advocate overthrow of this government..

Does that concept baffle you?:roll:

Rather, it saddens me that America then is so undemocratic.

Back in Denmark, 2 of the 179 seats in parlament were held by a group whose sole election platform was that equality could not be reached through democratic means. They were allowed to say this at any time they wanted. So America is LESS supportive of free speech than a moderately socialist welfare state? That's quite an admission you are making there, that people are more free under socialism. :shock:

 

[Deegan]

Hmm, that seems anti-democratic. Perhaps you can provide a reference or link to a post where this was clarified??

Not at all, the members are allowed to clap, boo, or talk under their breath, and they speak for the people. It is really about a sense of order, and a proud tradition, Cindy thought she was above that, she was wrong.

Still, I don't have the exact law for you at the moment, but I will look in to it.

 

[KCConservative]

Perhaps you have some problems with comprehension or literacy? Advocating a person's right to free speech doesn't mean agreement with that speech.

For some reason, this is a difficult concept for you, isn't it? Does the concept of free speech baffle you that much?

Why do so many liberals take this road? Is the topic Cindy Sheehan or your opponants intellect and literacy?

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel
yes, yes I do. I don't agree with everything she says or stands for, but I think that, becuase her son was a victim of the war, her opinion should carry some weight with the public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Why does that make her any smarter on foriegn policy and national security issues?

It doesn't. But there are people on both sides of the aisle who aren't qualified to deal with foreign policy, and yet they do.

But you said her opinion should carry more weight than others, why, why does it make her opinion concerning foriegn policy and national security?

She has a political agenda; so what? Everyone in politics does? Yet she seems to be the target of the right wing smear cannons.

If you are going to play in that arena then what you say will be challenged. Those who opposed her agenda have every right to speak out against her as she speaks out against those she opposes. If she can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. The fact is she has insulted our country she deserves to be called on it.

I have no problem with people attacking al franken or michael moore, or people on the left attacking bill o'reilly or ann coulter.

Why is challenging someone who is voluntarily throwing their opinion out for such scruiteny an "attack"?

It just seems heartless of the right wing to so horribly attack this woman when she's clearly expressing herself as a way to deal with the loss of her son.

The death of her son does not inoculate her from critisim of her outrageous statements against this country.

"Her son was a grown man, she has no right to anything, she did nothing but give birth to the man, that's it!"

That's not my statement why do you post it in quotes as if it were?

Maybe so, but she's still experiencing loss, and, as I said, is dealing with it in the way she can.

Well going to down and kissing up to Cheves' and insulting the US is not the best way to do that if you aren't able to take the critisim it will bring.

Calling her a twit or arrogant doesn't solve anything.

I didn't.

How does attacking her help the right wing agenda?

Exposing her statements for the fraud that they are will perhaps prevent a few of the uninformed from taking those statements seriously. Perhaps if she is finally taken out of the spot light with her inflamatory rhetoric that plays so well in those country's we are trying to convince to kick out those who would kill us we'd all be better off.

All it does is make conservatives look bad by attacking a grieving mother, when her political influence is essentially nil anyway.

Not to anyone with half a brain.

It's only the right wing that gives her all this attention anyway. If they hadn't made such a big deal over it, she would have gone away last year.

Who was it that gave her a ticket to the SOTUA, a leftest or a conservative. Did it for the publicity it would get in an attempt to embarrass the President on the night of that speech? The only ones making a big deal out of her are the media that are giving her the spotlight everytime she says something negative about Bush or the United States.

But then keep it up Cindy, you antics just make more middle of the roaders turn right.

 

[George_Washington]

Your thoughts please......

Do I support Cindy whack job Sheehan? Two words:

HELL NO.

 

[Stinger]

They didn't, but the right wing turned her 15 minutes of fame into several months of fame. If they had let it go, she would have fallen into obscurity again.

What would have been "letting it go" and specifically who was suppose to let it go? When she's all over ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, MSNBC, NYT, LAT, you say it's the RIGHT that needs to just not deal with her?

She is in the news this week for two reasons. She just went down to Venezuela and hugged up to a dictator while making outrageous insults towards the US and a DEMOCRAT pulled a publicity stunt to embarass Bush.

 

[George_Washington]

What would have been "letting it go" and specifically who was suppose to let it go? When she's all over ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, MSNBC, NYT, LAT, you say it's the RIGHT that needs to just no deal with her?

LOL, You are so correct. I can't go to a single newstation, even the conservative ones, without seeing something about her. Seems like she's taking over where the Spice Girls left off. Except without the good looks, sex appeal, or personality.

 

[Navy Pride]

This nutcase is a political whore...........She would her sorry soul for publicity........She got all pissed off when Katrina hit New Orleans and pushed her out of the news.............

She is disgusting and the Liberals and democrats that defend her deserve her.........

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes votes are beating the No's.

 

[Navy Pride]

Yes votes are beating the No's.

Judging from the people that post in this forum does that surprise you?

 

[akyron]

I support her right to have her own opinion.
I support her right to express her opinion if she does it is a civil non-disruptive manner. She does NOT have the right to disrupt someone else's freedom of speech.
I do not support her opinion.
I retain the right to critized her opinion as MY freedom of speech.

Well said. I voted yes.


I support her free speech regardless if its out of the cukoos nest or not.

I also advocate her immediately seeking therapy. She is unwell.

 

[Vandeervecken]

The issue here is the place and time, it is illegal to protest in this setting, that's the crux of this issue.

That law would never pass a court challenge if it existed. Of course it doesn't. The police released her, dropped charge and apologized for falsely arresting her. Rather takes the wind out of your claim.

 

[Vandeervecken]

I support her right to protest for the following reason, I know that Republicans will have a very hard time understanding this but here it goes:

1st Amendment United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Navy Pride
Judging from the people that post in this forum does that surprise you?

Yes. There are more conservatives on this forum than liberals.

 

[Deegan]

That law would never pass a court challenge if it existed. Of course it doesn't. The police released her, dropped charge and apologized for falsely arresting her. Rather takes the wind out of your claim.

Oh really, then why can't you even protest on the lawn of the WhiteHouse, much less our hallowed halls of the congress? Oh, that's right, she has been "arrested" before:roll:

" PHOTOS

Click image to enlarge
STORIES
•Small Counter Rally Shows Support for Troops•Counter Anti-War Rally to Take On Sheehan•Anti-War Group, Sheehan Arrive in D.C.•Sheehan Says She Was Hurt in NYC Rally•Sheehan Supporters Embark on Tour to D.C.•Sheehan Glad Bush Didn't Visit Protest•Thousands Protest in Crawford•Sharpton to Join 'Peace Mom' Anti-War Protest•Sheehan Plans to Extend Protest •Sheehan Returns to Crawford Protest•TV Station Refuses Anti-War Ad•Ex-FBI Whistleblower to Join Cindy Sheehan
WASHINGTON — Cindy Sheehan (search), the California woman who became a leader of the anti-war movement following her son's death in Iraq, was arrested Monday along with dozens of others protesting outside the White House.

Sheehan, carrying a photo of her son in his Army uniform, was among hundreds of protesters who marched around the White House and then down the two-block pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. When they reached the front of the White House, dozens sat down -- knowing they would be arrested -- and began singing and chanting "Stop the war now!"

Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests. One man climbed over the White House fence and was quickly subdued by Secret Service agents.

Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She smiled as she was carried to the curb, then stood up and walked to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."

About 50 people were arrested in the first hour, with dozens of others waiting to be taken away. All cooperated with police."

 

[Mikkel]

What would have been "letting it go" and specifically who was suppose to let it go? When she's all over ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, MSNBC, NYT, LAT, you say it's the RIGHT that needs to just not deal with her?

She is in the news this week for two reasons. She just went down to Venezuela and hugged up to a dictator while making outrageous insults towards the US and a DEMOCRAT pulled a publicity stunt to embarass Bush.

I'd first like to respond to your earlier post, which was very long and arduous and I would rather not go through all of it right now. First of all, that quote in the middle was not a quote posted by you. I apologize for not making that clearer. Everything written subsequent to that quote within the post was not directed at you either.

Now, rather than nitpick your entire argument, like you did mine, because I'm very tired, I'm going to say that since neither of us can provide quantitative evidence to support our arguments in this instance, to simply agree to disagree. It is true that Cindy Sheehan has continued to make the news, but I believe that if she had not gotten the attention she recieved from the right, her 'antics' would not be considered as newsworthy. I'd be more inclined to believe you if Bill O'Reilly didn't put her down every single time I watch his show, regardless of whether or not she HAS done anything newsworthy. He talks about Cindy Sheehan almost as much as Lou Dobbs talks about Illegal Immigration. Bill O'Reilly criticizes Cindy Sheehan every night on the factor, regardless of what she's done publicly, which keeps her in the spotlight.

And while you may think that middle of the roader's will go right because of her 'antics', I'd expect more middle of the roader's to go left because of the callousness the right has shown towards people like her. Its all a matter of perspective.

Quote by GEORGE WASHINGTON:

"LOL, You are so correct. I can't go to a single newstation, even the conservative ones, without seeing something about her. Seems like she's taking over where the Spice Girls left off. Except without the good looks, sex appeal, or personality."

An interesting comparison to anylize, if I may. Why did the spice girls go away? Because they said, 'We think we've had enough money, so we'll fall into obscurity now'? I don't think so. It's because people stopped caring. They stopped paying attention. People don't get on the news because they scream and shout 'hey, look at me!' They get on the news because important people, such as politicians or newscasters, respond to what they say. This rule applies as much to Cindy Sheehan as much as anyone else.

 

[Saboteur]

Free speech up to a point............You can't Scream fire in a crowded movie theater if there is none nor can you advocate overthrow of this government..

Does that concept baffle you?:roll:

Sure you can scream fire in a movie theater if there is none. You may get in trouble but you can do it.

And you can advocate the overthrow of this government if you want what do you think the KKK and other white supremist groups preach?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You guys have not suffered the same personal loss as she has. That gives her a right to speak out and be heard.

Umm no it doesn't, she's always got the freedom of speech that doesn't mean I have to listen to her crazy ass.

 

[Saboteur]

Why do so many liberals take this road? Is the topic Cindy Sheehan or your opponants intellect and literacy?

Why do so many conservatives bash liberals whenever they get a chance?

Why do they try to set us up with loaded questions then try to blast us for giving the answer they already knew they were going to get?

This is exactly what NavyPride has done with this thread and you know it. But are you going to question him for authoring a thread that is designed to get a reaction from liberalls and Democrats?

No.

Why?

Because he's on your 'team'.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Of course. Wouldn't you? Anybody have the right to make any claim or appeal. Now, if they act on it or cause others to act on it, then they get in trouble, of course. But speech itself is free.

Now, fascist, big-government-control-of-our-private-lives types may oppose this, but that is not surprising.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Freedom of Speech is limited in respect to speech which will cause immediate societal harm; such as incitement to revolution, riot, or violence, calling for the overthrow of the Government would certainly fall under that equation.

 

[Goobieman]

Sure you can scream fire in a movie theater if there is none. You may get in trouble but you can do it.

And you can advocate the overthrow of this government if you want what do you think the KKK and other white supremist groups preach?

The point is, these things are not "free speech" and as such, the 1st doesnt protect you from the government acting against you, should you decide to speak in this way.

 

[Navy Pride]

Sure you can scream fire in a movie theater if there is none. You may get in trouble but you can do it.

And you can advocate the overthrow of this government if you want what do you think the KKK and other white supremist groups preach?

And if you do those things you will be arrested.......The problem is the penalty is not enough.........If it was up to me I would lock the scum up and throw away the key.......